There has been some talk in adjusting the 4 divisions for basketball. The main point seems to be having fewer teams in the largest division and making the bottom three divisions a little larger. This is currently done in football with DI having only 72 teams versus around 108 for the other six divisions.

For basketball, I don't think this argument holds water. As the point has been made (and rightfully so) on many threads, for basketball, the size of the school carries much less significance. It only takes a player or two or three to vault a program into one that can compete with any team in the State, regardless of the size of school.

How many GWOC North teams have won Division 1 Sectionals in the last 15 years?

Don't know, Trotwood is smaller than all of them and yet they win Sectionals....

Sidney had their chance this year. Butler had a great season but also fell short.

Wayne defeated Centerville 3 times last season, Centerville has about 500 more boys in their school then Wayne so some of those North schools are closer in enrollment to Wayne than Wayne is to Centerville.....

There's an exemption to every argument. In my world the Dover s Zanesville s marietta s new Philly s E Liverpool s tri valley s go D 1 at times and have no chance to win more than 1 game in tournament in last 15 years. Basketball needs a super division and split up the other 3 division or add a 5th division in basketball.

I think this would be a fantastic idea. The difference between the smaller D1 schools and the big ones if greater in some cases than the difference between those same small D1s and the smallest D4. Personally I would like to see a 5th division added but I know that creates logistical issues for the state tournament so it is unlikely.

Example in boys: Gahanna 918 Licking Heights 449 is a difference of 469
Licking Heights 469 Fisher Catholic 59 is a difference of only 410

The schools that win D1 are usually in the 600-700 enrollment range. One or two higher, one lower. Not the mega-enrollment schools of football. I don't know on this one. SVSM can obviously compete with the D1 powers. Lower division schools can. Maybe a slight adjustment would be okay. What do the affected schools think is my question. Would they rather be in D1 (I'm thinking of a Uniontown Lake) or would they rather compete in D2? It should be up to them.

This is just silly in my eyes. In the last 5 years the D1 state basketball champion has been Moeller-664, Jackson-761, Westerville South-596, Wayne-723 and St Eds-727.
You can go back much further than 5 years and see there is no proof that a bigger school will win a basketball championship.

I think this would be a fantastic idea. The difference between the smaller D1 schools and the big ones if greater in some cases than the difference between those same small D1s and the smallest D4. Personally I would like to see a 5th division added but I know that creates logistical issues for the state tournament so it is unlikely.

Example in boys: Gahanna 918 Licking Heights 449 is a difference of 469
Licking Heights 469 Fisher Catholic 59 is a difference of only 410

The difference between Mason (largest) to Wilmington #32 is 1003 boys--that is a massive difference even in a sport that has just 5 boys on the court for each team. Always outlier years when a Wilmington with J. Cumberland has a fantastic team and makes it to a final 4, but that is rare. Seems to me that making D-1 similar to football, with the very top enrollment schools together in D-1, and then making divisions 2-4 bigger to accomodate those schools that typically have little or no chance to advance past a first round tournament victory--certainly is an idea to pursue with such a large differential in enrollment from biggest to smallest in D-1 in basketball.

Mason --1357
Elder -- 648
The difference between Mason (largest) to Wilmington #32 is 1003 boys--that is a massive difference even in a sport that has just 5 boys on the court for each team. Always outlier years when a Wilmington with J. Cumberland has a fantastic team and makes it to a final 4, but that is rare. Seems to me that making D-1 similar to football, with the very top enrollment schools together in D-1, and then making divisions 2-4 bigger to accomodate those schools that typically have little or no chance to advance past a first round tournament victory--certainly is an idea to pursue with such a large differential in enrollment from biggest to smallest in D-1 in basketball.

2018 Mason-1357 was beat by Elder-648 this year in Mason's first tournament game.
2017 Mason-1357 was beat by Moeller-664 last year.
2016 Mason-1357 was beat by Wilmington-354 the year you mentioned.
2015 Mason-1357 was beat by LaSalle-431. Mason was undefeated at the time.

2018 Mason-1357 was beat by Elder-648 this year in Mason's first tournament game.
2017 Mason-1357 was beat by Moeller-664 last year.
2016 Mason-1357 was beat by Wilmington-354 the year you mentioned.
2015 Mason-1357 was beat by LaSalle-431. Mason was undefeated at the time.

Not sure what your point is--that the biggest school can't lose to a smaller school in the tournament?? Certainly happens in D-1 because the disparity in enrollments is so large or you have a J. Cumberland at Wilmington who can win a game by himself--the point of the proposal is to give the really small D-1 schools a shot in the tourney of making a significant run based on their smaller numbers.

You reference Mason losing in a Regional semi by 3 points to undefeated Moeller who made it to the State Finals--losing to Wimington in District Final who made the Final 4--cmon that is stretching the point of making things better for the very smallest D-1 schools--good teams play other good teams at the Regional and District level every year.

The difference between Mason (largest) to Wilmington #32 is 1003 boys--that is a massive difference even in a sport that has just 5 boys on the court for each team. Always outlier years when a Wilmington with J. Cumberland has a fantastic team and makes it to a final 4, but that is rare. Seems to me that making D-1 similar to football, with the very top enrollment schools together in D-1, and then making divisions 2-4 bigger to accomodate those schools that typically have little or no chance to advance past a first round tournament victory--certainly is an idea to pursue with such a large differential in enrollment from biggest to smallest in D-1 in basketball.

Wasn't Wilmington in the final 4 a few years back while in D1?

enrollment size does not equate in basketball once you get around 300 to 400 boys in your school. Basically, not much difference in basketball of a school of 600 to a school of 900 as to a school of 50 to a school of 350 though both have a 300 difference.

Not sure what your point is--that the biggest school can't lose to a smaller school in the tournament?? Certainly happens in D-1 because the disparity in enrollments is so large or you have a J. Cumberland at Wilmington who can win a game by himself--the point of the proposal is to give the really small D-1 schools a shot in the tourney of making a significant run based on their smaller numbers.

You reference Mason losing in a Regional semi by 3 points to undefeated Moeller who made it to the State Finals--losing to Wimington in District Final who made the Final 4--cmon that is stretching the point of making things better for the very smallest D-1 schools--good teams play other good teams at the Regional and District level every year.

There is no proposal. The discussion is being driven by the smaller D1 schools claiming they do not have a fair chance but in actuality, there is nothing proving that the largest D1 schools are consistently winning.

Some of these teams have played in D2 in the past few years. They didn't do much better there:
Western Brown won one tournament game (against Batavia) from 2014-2017.
Talawanda was 0-2 in 2014 & 2015.
Mt. Healthy won one tournament game (against McNick) from 2016-2017.

Some of these teams have played in D2 in the past few years. They didn't do much better there:
Western Brown won one tournament game (against Batavia) from 2014-2017.
Talawanda was 0-2 in 2014 & 2015.
Mt. Healthy won one tournament game (against McNick) from 2016-2017.

All the more argument for them belonging in D2. If they canít win a game in D2 they probably shouldnít be playing in D1

So we are looking to place larger school teams with the smaller school teams because they are bad?

Those schools are much closer in size to most D2 schools than they are to D1 schools. But IMO I would have been in favor of a tradition factor that some states have where teams would be moved up or down based on tournament performance over a number of years.

Those schools are much closer in size to most D2 schools than they are to D1 schools. But IMO I would have been in favor of a tradition factor that some states have where teams would be moved up or down based on tournament performance over a number of years.

If they do a tradition factor (and I'm not a fan of this in general, but I like my idea), it should be based not off of what the team has done the prior few years. But based on how many of the athletes from past successful teams are returning. So if a team returns any athletes from the teams that went to states the prior three years, those returning athletes would get a multiplier like what they do for competitive balance. That I think could be a good way of ensuring perennial powerhouse teams like SVSM are competing against the kind of competition they should be competing against, while ensuring that teams like that John Glenn team of a couple years ago that graduated much of their state championship talent doesn't face having its next generation be punished by being in a tougher division because of the success of guys who aren't even on the team anymore. Again, not a fan of punishing success, but I do think that would be a better way to do it, if that's the direction the state wants to go.

Hypothetical, the Jone twins who were both All-Ohio their junior season on a 26-4 state runner up team have moved to another school because dad’s jobs took them to another city. Who gets the multiplier for the returning athlete?

If they do a tradition factor (and I'm not a fan of this in general, but I like my idea), it should be based not off of what the team has done the prior few years. But based on how many of the athletes from past successful teams are returning. So if a team returns any athletes from the teams that went to states the prior three years, those returning athletes would get a multiplier like what they do for competitive balance. That I think could be a good way of ensuring perennial powerhouse teams like SVSM are competing against the kind of competition they should be competing against, while ensuring that teams like that John Glenn team of a couple years ago that graduated much of their state championship talent doesn't face having its next generation be punished by being in a tougher division because of the success of guys who aren't even on the team anymore. Again, not a fan of punishing success, but I do think that would be a better way to do it, if that's the direction the state wants to go.

First, I disagree with the proposition that moving a school up is a "punishment". To me, it's a challenge. Second, if the intention is to prevent teams like John Glenn from accumulating talent for a one year run at a title, wouldn't moving them up based upon their success be exactly the deterrent you are looking for? That way, it would be on the coach and the school to decide if it is worth the title run knowing they will likely take it in the neck the following year. NOTE: I have zero issue with John Glenn. They beat my Irish twice that year, but they were two of the best HS basketball games I have seen.

If they do a tradition factor (and I'm not a fan of this in general, but I like my idea), it should be based not off of what the team has done the prior few years. But based on how many of the athletes from past successful teams are returning. So if a team returns any athletes from the teams that went to states the prior three years, those returning athletes would get a multiplier like what they do for competitive balance. That I think could be a good way of ensuring perennial powerhouse teams like SVSM are competing against the kind of competition they should be competing against, while ensuring that teams like that John Glenn team of a couple years ago that graduated much of their state championship talent doesn't face having its next generation be punished by being in a tougher division because of the success of guys who aren't even on the team anymore. Again, not a fan of punishing success, but I do think that would be a better way to do it, if that's the direction the state wants to go.

I donít think a one year run by a team like John Glenn would move them up. I would propose an 8 year rolling period of time where you would have to accumulate enough regional or state appearances. I donít know what that number would be.

I don’t think a one year run by a team like John Glenn would move them up. I would propose an 8 year rolling period of time where you would have to accumulate enough regional or state appearances. I don’t know what that number would be.

John Glenn was 24-1 the year before their state Championship year. Lost in regional finals. Not an issues with them even know kids were changing schools to make this happen.

So a small farm school like Marion Local should be bumped up to to play bigger schools because their kids and coaches have worked hard and have had some success over your defined period of time with Marion Local kids.?

No. And Most very small division 1 schools have no chance unless they recruit. All the other divisions are pretty equal except the teams that recruit. The new transfer rule basically changed little.

Divisions are not made up to give everyone a chance. With roughly 800 schools playing basketball it works best to put 200 in each division. The balance formula and the new transfer rule may help in making changes.

Divisions are not made up to give everyone a chance. With roughly 800 schools playing basketball it works best to put 200 in each division. The balance formula and the new transfer rule may help in making changes.

Why does it work best to have 200 teams in each division? I still donít understand why there needs to be an equal number of teams in each division.